The market is an inherently global institution. The market is non-racist, non-nationalist, and non-religious, for as long as decisions are made solely in monetary terms, the race, nationality, and religion of buyers and sellers simply do not matter. Often, they are completely unknown.

I know the ethnic identity of the owners of the Armenian rug shop and the Chinese restaurant down the street. But what is the race, ethnicity, or nationality of the Coca-Cola Corporation? Its stockholders, employees, and customers have every identity in the world. But the corporation has none. It is global, cosmopolitan. As its famous jingle tells us, it wants to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, meaning that it wants a pacified planet where people have relinquished all boundaries and identities that might impede the sale of Coke.

Globalization is the process of making the inherently global, cosmopolitan potential of the marketplace actual by breaking down racial, national, religious, and cultural barriers to the market, such as protectionist laws, religious prohibitions on usury, ancient enmities between peoples, sentimental attachments to one’s community, tribe, homeland, etc.

For consumers in the First World, globalization starts out as a good thing. They can take their First World wages and buy lots of cheaper goods manufactured in the Third World. For capitalists based in the First World, it is an even better thing, for they can make enormous profits by selling Third World goods at only slightly lower prices than goods manufactured at far greater expense in the First World—and pocket the difference.

For example, to use arbitrary numbers, when shoes were made in America, a pair of shoes retailing for $100 might be manufactured by a worker being paid $10/hour, 40 hours/ week + overtime pay, plus benefits, plus vacation time, in a factory regulated for health, safety, and environmental impact. Sure, it sounds like a lot of bother. But it never prevented American shoe manufacturers from becoming millionaires.

And when such a manufacturer left his factory at the end of the day, his luxury car would share the road with the modest cars of his own employees. He would pass through a bustling downtown where the wives of his employees shopped; he would pass the school attended by the children of his employees; he might even attend the local high school football game and cheer the sons of his workers; he would drive through neighborhoods with neatly painted houses and manicured lawns, where his employees lived. And when he arrived at his columned mansion, he would simply pull off the road into his driveway. There would be no security gates and guards to protect him.

With globalization, however, a similar pair of shoes retailing for $95 might be manufactured in Indonesia by a half-starved wretch making a fraction of the wages, with no overtime, no vacation, and no benefits, in a factory with no regulations for health, safety, or environmental impact. And the shoe manufacturer pockets the difference.

Even if the American owner of an American-founded, American-based, American-staffed shoe manufacturer had a sentimental attachment to his nation and his employees, he could not compete with rivals who had no such ties. In the end, he would have to close his factory: either to ship his jobs to the Third World or simply due to bankruptcy. Thus the globalization process selects for and rewards rootless cosmopolitanism and anti-national, anti-patriotic, anti-communitarian sentiments.

In the long run, globalization means one thing: the equalization of wages and living standards over the whole globe. That means that First World living standards will fall a great deal, and Third World living standards will rise a little bit, until parity is achieved. In other words, globalization means the destruction of the American working and middle classes. It means a reduction of their standard of living to those of Third World coolies. Globalization means the reversal of the progress in living standards since the industrial revolution.

Specifically, globalization means the reversal of the genuine progress made by the left. Gone will be the higher pay, shorter work days, and benefits won by the labor movement; gone will be the health-care plans, safety regulations, welfare programs, and old age pensions created by liberals and social democrats (programs that do not exist in the Third World); gone will be the environmental protections won by ecologists (which are only imposed on the Third World by the First World, which will no longer have that luxury).

But globalization also affects the rich. First of all, those who have grown rich by selling things to the working and middle classes of the First World will disappear along with their customers. There will no longer be a market for riding lawnmowers or camper trailers. The rich who remain will produce either for the global super-rich or the global proletariat. And the lives of the rich will be dramatically transformed as well. Some people will grow very rich indeed by dismantling the First World. But they will end up living like the rich of the Third World.

They will commute from fortified factories or offices to fortified mansions in armored limousines with armed guards past teeming slums and shantytowns. They will socialize at exclusive clubs and vacation at exclusive resorts under the watchful eyes of security guards. Like Marie Antoinette, who liked to play milkmaid in the gardens of Versailles, they might even pretend to be bohemians in million-dollar flats in Haight Ashbury, or cowboys on twenty-million dollar ranches in Wyoming, or New England villagers in million-dollar cottages on Martha’s Vineyard—having ridden to the top of a system that has exterminated the people who created these ways of life.

The consequences of globalization are not secret. They are not random and unpredictable. They are not even arcane or controversial. They are predicted in every introductory economics textbook. They are apparent in the stagnation of American working and middle class living standards beginning in the 1970s and the steep declines of the last decade, when 50,000 American manufacturing facilities closed their doors, many to ship their jobs overseas—while millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, came to compete with Americans for the jobs that remain, depress wages, and consume public services for which they cannot pay.

Yet the American middle and working classes were never allowed a choice about globalization, for the obvious reason that they would never have approved of their pauperization. The labor movement, the political parties, the churches, and all other forces that are capable of resisting globalization have been coopted.

Sincere progressives recognize the destructive effects of globalization, but most of them think that the only alternative to global capitalism is global socialism, which is no solution, even if it could be attained.

But if we reject globalization, what is the natural economic unit? This is where White Nationalists are able to address the genuine concerns of the Occupy movement and other progressive critics of globalization. For the boundary where globalization ends is the nation. The United States and every other European nation entered modernity and made most of their economic and social progress by practicing nationalistic economic policies, including protectionism. Prosperity and social justice will return when globalization is replaced by economic nationalism.

Libertarians decry protectionism as benefiting one group at the expense of another (as if globalization did not do the same thing). But this is the wrong way to look at it. Every individual wears different hats and plays different roles: producer, consumer, family member, citizen, etc. Free trade makes us good consumers, but it also makes us bad citizens by undermining social justice and national sovereignty. Protectionism limits our acquisitiveness as consumers, but it strengthens us as citizens. Free trade empowers some businessmen at the expense of the common good, making them bad citizens. Protectionism and other regulations make all businessmen good citizens by making it impossible to profit at the expense of the common good—which leaves no shortage of opportunities to generate wealth in a socially responsible fashion.

But wouldn’t the completion of globalization, whether socialist or capitalist, be worth it, if it really could lead to a world without nations, borders, boundaries, and wars? It is this utopian hope that sustains the allegiance of many globalists despite the spreading desolation of the Earth. It is the same hope that sustained Communists despite the oceans of blood they spilled.

There are two basic replies to this. One is to argue that it is not worth it, which the die-hard utopian would never accept. The other is to argue that a world without nations will never be achieved, and the people who are pushing it, moreover, are not even serious about the notion. Globalization is not the overcoming of nationalism, but merely the way that market dominant nations break down barriers to expanding their own economic power. Today’s color-coded, Twitter and Facebook powered insurrections in Eastern Europe and the Muslim world are merely the modern version of the empire-building and gunboat diplomacy of centuries past. George Soros is just the Cecil Rhodes of today.

Jews like Soros, of course, are the primary preachers of universalist schemes such as global trade, open borders, racial miscegenation, multiculturalism, and other forms of identity erasure. But they show no signs of practicing these same policies among themselves. What is theirs they keep; what is ours is negotiable. The implication is obvious: their goal is to destroy all national boundaries and racial and cultural identities that serve as impediments to expanding Jewish power. Globalization is not a path to universal freedom. It is the creation of one neck to bear a Jewish yoke for eternity.

It is easy to see why Jews think that the devastation caused by globalization is worth it to them, but it is hard to understand why anybody else wishes to go along with it, except for the alienated, deracinated products of cultural decline. And even these people have to be asking themselves if this is the world they really want.

Universalism, after all, is not really universal. Only whites seem susceptible to it in large enough numbers to matter. But if universalism is merely a racially and culturally European belief system, then globalization will only work by exterminating Jews and other ancient, ethnocentric people like the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Armenians, etc., who refuse to jump into the global melting pot. This means that globalization is not the path to a liberal utopia, but merely a genocidal extension of European imperialism. But given the massive investment in Holocaust propaganda, even the most fanatical globalists don’t have the heart for that solution, so in the end, they would have to allow ethnocentric peoples to opt out.

And if Jews and others get to opt out of globalization, then why can’t the rest of us? Especially since unreciprocated free trade is regressive, dissolving national sovereignty, undermining social justice, and delivering the destinies of European peoples into the hands of aliens.

The conclusion is clear: Progressive advocates of globalization are either ignorant or they are dishonest shills for a process that will pauperize and enslave the people they pretend to defend. There is a vast constituency in America for a racially-conscious, nationalistic, anti-globalist, protectionist, progressive political party. They are only waiting for leadership.

Related

Related

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)

Universalism and globalization do not effect genocide directly. Whites are not being killed off directly. They effect genocide by creating and promoting conditions that gradually lead to dissolution. States and peoples who resist will have their regimes attacked via military and other means, and then replaced with those that implement the conditions that lead to dissolution of peoples.

Those who promote universalism and globalization are not necessarily advancing their own or their group interests. In examining an organism’s behavior, the question is not how a particular behavior is benefiting the organism performing it, but rather whose genes the behavior is benefiting. Universalism and globalization are not really an extension of European imperialism as they ultimately do not serve Europeans. They are more like a Euro-Semitic-sub-Saharan African hybrid, with Euros promoting it serving the interests of Jews and Semitic universalism, and serving the interests of Negroids via Africa worship.

Universalism is arguably due to Middle Eastern, Semitic influence and introgression into Europe, which by now is thousands of years old. Pre-Christian, pre-late Roman, native European pagans with their tribes, gods, and pagan religious pluralism were not characterized by this kind of universalism. Islam is of course another Mideastern, Semitic universalism, and its expansion into Europe is in a way a continuation of this old process.

The technical infrastructure of the Roman Empire compensated for the naturally harsh conditions at the frontiers of that Empire creating an environment within which the universalism of Christianity was promoted among Europeans by the early Christian Proselytes. Jewish religious belief, however, retained its tribal character, expressing both reciprocal and kin altruism. The result was an extended period of Jewish success in diaspora among Europeans in competition with holders of indigenous niches involving religious beliefs and inter-tribal trade. This successful displacement of indigenous religions and trade niches has continued till this day including recent innovations in religion such as Marxist economics, Rosenbaumian philosophy aka “Objectivism”, Boasian anthropology/sociology, Freudian psychology, neo-liberalism, globalism, etc.

“Like Marie Antoinette, who liked to play milkmaid in the gardens of Versailles, they might even pretend to be bohemians in million-dollar flats in Haight Ashbury, or cowboys on twenty-million dollar ranches in Wyoming, or New England villagers in million-dollar cottages on Martha’s Vineyard—having ridden to the top of a system that has exterminated the people who created these ways of life.”

As I said in my “Gilmore Girls Occupy Wall St.” post, the contradiction at the heart of OWS is that they protest globalization, but want to remake their environments into the same, hollowed out “college towns” without those messy “white trash” small town people a la The Big Chill.

The Left sees globalisation as part of a dialectical process. Their feigned opposition is humbug. Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto and elsewhere that Free Trade is a subversive doctrine that destroys the concept of nationality, and is to be welcomed. The Left oppose protectionism as nationalistic; particularly the Trotskyites. this partly explains why it is an easy move for many Leftists to become Libertarians. In New Zealand for e.g. the Act Party, a libertarian party that thankfully destructed at the recent General Election, was primarily founded by ex-Labour Party luminaries who shortly before had proudly called themselves “socialists.”

Both Greg and Eric are hinting at the need for a leader. In the spirit of my two cents worth I disagree for C-C is already on the right track with it’s education program. Julius Evola wrote in his revolt Against the Modern World (p22) that Aryan India employed a special expression to designate those who broke the caste law: they were called “the fallen ones” or “the lapsed.” All we need is for an awakening of who we are and then our collapse will cease and the organic recovery begin. An American spring?

Absolutely true, all of it. Hell, this is basic middle-American populist rhetoric at it’s finest. This sort of basic economis ideology will become more and more appealing within this decade, guaranteed.

Excellent essay. The average working guy knows how globalization has screwed him and would vote for (or otherwise support) a political-economy that would allow him to earn and honest living and provide for his family.

Greg, I think that you have unwittingly alluded to the fact that much of what is referred to as racism today is in reality merely a protest against union busting. Whether it was the Chinese Coolies brought up from the States to help build Canada’s railways in the early 1900’s or the Filipinos being trained today to come over as nurses and care aides it all leads to downward pressure on wages and benefits. But whatever it is, as they say in the financial advice newsletters, “This is not going to end well.”

[…] resume the path to the stars, we will have to begin by addressing four principal evils: dysgenics, economic globalization, racial diversity (including non-white immigration), and finance capitalism.What do we call this […]